Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Goldsmiths University Diversity officer facing sack

Should she be sacked?

  • Yes she should

    Votes: 71 53.4%
  • No she should not

    Votes: 32 24.1%
  • Official warning

    Votes: 7 5.3%
  • Attention seeking option

    Votes: 23 17.3%

  • Total voters
    133
I do. I don't support labelling people bigots though without fully hearing their arguments first.

Seems to me that there are arguments that happen elsewhere, on twitter say, and someone says something here that sounds a bit similar and its as though that statement then changes from a statement made in the context of what we know about that poster and is instead seen in the context of the misogynistic or phobic or racist argument made elsewhere, as though that particular point is logically part of an argument, as if its code for something, that is unmistakeably bigoted, and an example of privilege.

I've had this experience more and more on urban over the past year or 2, and I'm a fairly politically thoughtful person, and I end up thinking, oh, I've said something wrong there, looks like what I've said there is some trope I'm not even aware of. So much potential for tripping up.
 
FFS, he's got you on ignore, you beef-witted poltroon.
i thought he might be one of the 30-something losers but was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. btw you can fuck off with your accusations of cowardice you fly-ridden gobshite.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that there are arguments that happen elsewhere, on twitter say, and someone says something here that sounds a bit similar and its as though that statement then changes from a statement made in the context of what we know about that poster and is instead seen in the context of the misogynistic or phobic or racist argument made elsewhere, as though that particular point is logically part of an argument, as if its code for something, that is unmistakeably bigoted, and an example of privilege.

I've had this experience more and more on urban over the past year or 2, and I'm a fairly politically thoughtful person, and I end up thinking, oh, I've said something wrong there, looks like what I've said there is some trope I'm not even aware of. So much potential for tripping up.

Triggers is the new fangled word for it I think. It's like something out of 1984. I didn't see anyone being bigoted but because their opinions sailed too close to other stuff - guilt. This discussion has been the poorer for it imo.
 
Triggers is the new fangled word for it I think. It's like something out of 1984. I didn't see anyone being bigoted but because their opinions sailed too close to other stuff - guilt. This discussion has been the poorer for it imo.
It's often difficult to see the markers of bigotry when you don't understand the concepts and you're not on the receiving end. It doesn't mean they're not there, though. And the failure of some people to acknowledge that has meant that this discussion has been poorer for it imo.
 
It's often difficult to see the markers of bigotry when you don't understand the concepts and you're not on the receiving end. It doesn't mean they're not there, though. And the failure of some people to acknowledge that has meant that this discussion has been poorer for it imo.

So we need to identify who is qualified to acknowledge the bigotry and who those bigots are. I'm guessing you're the authority on this one?
 
Triggers is the new fangled word for it I think. It's like something out of 1984. I didn't see anyone being bigoted but because their opinions sailed too close to other stuff - guilt. This discussion has been the poorer for it imo.

I think the whole 'trigger' thing is about association and the fact that some people haven't yet worked out that some ideas they have are evidence of internalised prejudice. None of us are immune to that. It isn't limited to any one subject either. Sometimes we get challenged on something we say and even if we have a right to think and feel a certain way, it doesn't make what we think/feel is universally right.
 
Last edited:
If you're not engaging in Mccarthyism yourself - you'll provide the evidence that excluding trans women isn't bigoted.

We're talking about the behaviour of people on this thread that you're being deliberately vague about. That's why I brought McCarthyism up. Create a social taboo and then police it.
 
The problem with conceptualising gender as binary is that "binary" implies mutually exclusive opposites. I don't even have well-defined templates of "man" and "woman" to work off, let alone something that allows me to judge whether these definitions are mutually exclusive of eachother.

So it's not an individual's self-identification I take issue with at all -- as far as I am concerned, each individual is best place to decide for themselves who they fundamentally are . No, it's the very framework of the gender discussion. There seems to be an awful lot conceptually that just gets taken for granted, as if it is a given. But discussing the implications of a social construct without examining what that social construct actually is in the first place is doomed to endless, repeated misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, you also need to understand what "social construct" means, and how the fact of a meaning being socially constructed can limit how the subject is discussed.
Here in the UK we very much still have discursive limitations on how trans is discussed, with a dead weight of decades of broad social and institutional prejudice meaning that "pro" trans currents are suppressed more heavily than "anti" trans currents, which suits power fine - one fewer distinction to deal with.
 
We're talking about the behaviour of people on this thread that you're being deliberately vague about. That's why I brought McCarthyism up. Create a social taboo and then police it.
I'm not being vague at all. I'm being specific. It's a social taboo for the same reason racism (for example) is and if you've got evidence it shouldn't be a social taboo any more you'd better produce it rather than slurring me with McCarthyism.
 
I'm not being vague at all. I'm being specific. It's a social taboo for the same reason racism (for example) is and if you've got evidence it shouldn't be a social taboo any more you'd better produce it rather than slurring me with McCarthyism.

You said the trans exclusionists are guilty but refuse to name them or point to their posts. Now either its happening on this thread or I've completely misunderstood various complaints and I apologise.
 
Back
Top Bottom